I've worked lock-up and residential treatment. Interacting with crazy folks is a good way to make their problems into your problems. Seems to me whether the guy is drunk, diabetic, or crazy, he needs help which I am quite likely not in a position to give. Best call the 1st responders.
Gunning down the poor SOB because it makes my nuts feel bigger seems like a poor choice.

If you lived in a city you've probably seen the poor souls who walk around talking to thin air. More obvious before the cell phone became ubiquitous. Occasionally I have seen them act confrontational. Not to me or anyone in particular but in a general way as I have the impression the fellow in the OP's scenario is depicted. The stick waving is the part of the equation that seems the most threatening to me. I still wouldn't pull down on the guy though unless it was absolutely necessary. IOW, he was coming directly for me in a threatening manner.

Without going into details I will say that I had an occasion to pull a 357 mag 2 1/2 model 19 on a burglar. I made the wrong assumption that he would put his hands up and become compliant because if I was a burglar and someone pulled a gun on me that is what I would do. This led to an exchange of shots between the two of us. This was years before concealed carry was legal in FL and I also assumed he was unarmed. Wrong. No hits and he did get away.

I don't know about anyone else but when you are pointing a loaded gun at a stranger there is one heck of a lot of stuff going through your mind IME. A big difference between criminals and us is that they probably don't even think of the ramifications of their actions.

Posted by Skans: This is absurd. I would never draw on an man asking for directions, even a staggering drunk.

Of course not, and I did not mean to imply that you would.

I didn't phrase it clearly, but I meant to describe something more like this:

Quote:

...the drunk enters onto my property and starts acting violent toward me, then I may decide to pull my gun out. Anything short of that, I'm not pulling a gun out or shooting anyone.

The point remains the same, however: what did you perceive and why, what did witnesses think they observed, and most probably, what does the man you shot say happened, and finally, what will others believe? Remember, any halo you may think you have, and any honor you may think you have to defend, will be completely invisible to anyone but you.

And, your account of the encounter notwithstanding, what they all say may sound a lot more like this:

Quote:

an apparently harmless man who had been asking people for directions came close to you, you drew a gun, and you shot him down...

Whether your defense of jistification succeeds or not, consider that all of your problems, which could range from very high legal costs and loss of employment to conviction, imprisonment, permanent loss of gun rights, and large civil judgments, or any of several combinations, could have been avoided very, very simply.

That's all predicated on the possibility that things go south, so to speak. This could work out, too:

Quote:

In fact, on one or two occasions I have seen someone who didn't look "quite right" wondering the street in front of my house while i was out doing yard work, and I did exactly what I said I would do here - stood where I was and watched that person, until that person moved on.

The question one has to answer, and it's a judgment call based on the specific events as they unfold, is how long to stand, and when to evade and avoid.

Just realize that if your fall-back option involves pulling a gun, it's not a good plan at all.

A friend who served in law enforcement for more than ten years is more concerned about cvil judgments than criminal charges, because he knows the criminal code, and he has seen civil judgments. His comment is, "the only time my gun is ever coming out is when I am about to die!"

I think its a good idea to make it look like there is activity when you see people in the neighborhood walking around that you do not know. They might be casing the different houses and so you want to make your house appear like a hard target.

At night, if I see or hear any noises then I will throw all of the floodlights on outside. If there is anyone walking the street, then the floods come on. All of my floodlights, BTW, have motion sensors on them anyway so they will turn on automatically if someone is walking around. They are very sensitive and oftentimes the wind might knock them on accidentally. Better too sensitive then not enough.

By day, I would do the old sweeping the porch routine. When someone is walking around outside, you then stand from afar with a broom sweeping up. Thereby, you make it appear like there is activity, but you dont make it appear like you are looking at the stranger. If the stranger does approach you, then you do have the broomstick in hand to defend yourself.

Now if you had a bat in hand and were standing there looking at them then that can be construed as hostile and someone might justify that to attack you. If you got close enough to the stranger, then that could be construed as assault. Whenever you have any kind of weapon at the ready then it takes things to a whole other level where misunderstandings will occur.

I would not stare at them or say anything because that can be interpreted as a hostile act. Have you ever become annoyed or aggravated because someone decided to stare at you? It is a little annoying so I would not test the waters out with a stranger in that regard.

To me, the concept of a duty to retreat and a duty to stand your ground are both kinda alien.

Retreat and standing ground are simply tactics which may be employed correctly or incorrectly. A free man must have a right to property, in my view … which would negate any duty to retreat from property he rightfully owned or was rightfully using.
Being free would also negate a duty to stand your ground, because it would bind the man to the property and make him no longer free. Basically, you have a Right to give.

I would say that there is a right to stand your ground as an extension of the right to property just as there is a right to keep arms as an extension of a right to protect yourself .. (bearing arms corresponds to use of property.) … and all stem from a right to self-determination.
I would further say that there is a right to advance within the framework of not violating the unalienable rights of others (aka pursuit of happiness)

__________________
Keep smiling ... it'll just make 'em wonder what you're up to...

Sure is. One minute he's mumbling stumbling up the street and now ya'll got him in the driveway beating on the guys car and telling him to go in his house and call the police LOL!! That's funny.

So what's the underlying message that the community is saying here? That I should run away from drunken, criminal type behavior? That I should condition myself to always call the authorities on my fellow Americans? That I have the moral expectation thrust on me to give my property and not defend it? Let's teach the criminals that we will run and speed dialing that cellphone to the heroic po po so they can have thier way if they're fast enough?

That I should run away from drunken, criminal type behavior? That I should condition myself to always call the authorities on my fellow Americans? That I have the moral expectation thrust on me to give my property and not defend it? Let's teach the criminals that we will run and speed dialing that cellphone to the heroic po po so they can have thier way if they're fast enough?

Property can be replaced.

__________________
"Every man alone is sincere; at the entrance of a second person hypocrisy begins." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard

As I understand the original scenario, it's not clear what the actual intent of the trespasser might be. It's also unclear whether he is rational, intoxicated, mentally unstable, and/or intent on doing harm? In that situation, the appropriate response is to put as much distance (and physical cover) between yourself and the other person as possible, and letting the police deal with him or her. You haven't been able to identify an actual threat, only the possibility of one, and that ain't enough to use deadly force, or to brandish any sort of weapon. If the person is actually psychotic, "standing your ground" is actually more likely to unnecessarily drivee the situation to a potentially violent conclusion - and to what end?

I agree with you on your feelings. I want to stand my ground guarding my house and do so aggressively. However, how I feel and what I have to do to limit my risk and liability are two different things.

We are just suggesting ways on how you can limit your risk and liability. Its up to you on how to take these suggestions because we wont be the ultimate judge of the situation.

That I have the moral expectation thrust on me to give my property and not defend it?

First moral expectation is what you perceive. But in many states you do not have the legal right to defend property with lethal force. Your best option is to retreat and call. I would just ask what do you own that is of the same value as a human life? In the original post this is just a person walking down the street. He's not described as a BG just a guy. Observe, photograph, and stay safe if the police come and look like they need assistance than help them, but go out unarmed. To all you know they (the police) may roll up and know this guy. He may be off is medication and I'm not talking about self medication. The police may want you to know this guy in case it happens again. You (or most of us) don't have the resources or the training that they have. Don't aggravate the situation defuse it by leaving.

Also remember that you might have to protect and defend your family it would be much easier to do this from within the home. Also if he comes in your home and you are backed into a room well away from the point of entry your legal defense would be much easier.

So now it's all the way to attack the moral turpitudes of a man who says he wont back down on his land...I think they used to call that American spirit and people used to respect it.

Now he's a bad guy because he said he wont back down. This countrys time is passed. I miss the good old days.

No one has said that he's a bad guy. Several people have pointed out that in general, it is in one's own best interest to avoid... retreat from... de-escalate... threatening situations. The corollary of this is that a blanket insistence on "standing one's ground," no matter what, is likely to lead to confrontations that could have been avoided. And as OldMarksman has pointed out in some detail, the financial and legal consequences of any confrontation, even one in which one is eventually exonerated, can be devastating.

A belief in the supremacy of one's own rights over the needs of other people (and one's responsibilities to them) is an essentially narcissistic viewpoint; insisting on those "rights" even when doing so is likely to have negative consequences for oneself is self-destructive, and implies a level of narcissism that's, well, pathological.

Thinking that it's cowardly to back down from a confrontation ("tuck tail and run" were the words used); having a huge emotional investment in "standing one's ground;" defending one's "turf" against all comers even when that means resorting to violence -- these sound more like the attitudes of adolescent gang members than those of responsible adults.

Quote:

So what's the underlying message that the community is saying here? That I should run away from drunken, criminal type behavior? That I should condition myself to always call the authorities on my fellow Americans? That I have the moral expectation thrust on me to give my property and not defend it?

The message is merely that you should do what's in your own best interest, which is to avoid unnecessary confrontations: that putting yourself in a situation in which you might have to use deadly force just... isn't... smart. The price you're likely to pay, in any rational accounting, is too high.

(And, Edward429451, you might want to look up "moral turpitude." It doesn't mean what you think it does.)

__________________"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)

I feel like I pay enough in taxes so that the police can handle the annoying drunks so I don't have too. If he is on your property or being a nuisance, ask him to leave, if he doesn’t, call the police. The police will come by, pick him up, and you can go back to doing whatever it was you were before hand.

If it was something pressing I had to deal with, I would, but why bother putting yourself in that situation if it is really not necessary?

Vanya,
Combat narcissism borne of selfishness … with selfishness ? Trade "narcissism of belief" into "narcissism of practice"? OR…. My beliefs are more valuable vs. my self-interests are more valuable ?
Your characterization of his model explodes and yours implodes, … unless some arbitrary system of relativism is imposed (exterior law imposed?)… then either can work …but both render morality as dependent on law for operation, imo

How about believing in the supremacy of rights over needs … regardless if they are "of self" or "of other" ?
More correctly than "supremacy", would be that the exercise of rights is the way to fulfill needs…

__________________
Keep smiling ... it'll just make 'em wonder what you're up to...

This forum is called Tactics and Training. Discussions should be centered on what methods/tactics should be used to achieve legal and desirable ends and what training should be used to insure that the methods/tactics are implemented properly when the time comes.

Legality is an important part of any discussions here as TFL is focused on responsible firearms ownership.

But when the discussion turns to morality and philosophy we've wandered too far afield.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.